Climate campaigners claim greatest ever success at Montreal

Fantastic! It's a start. Time to tackle this grave issue immediately.

*claps*

Thanks for the post ;)
 
I was hoping the "Bush was really humiliated by all this" part would at least start some kind of debate. Oh well. ;(
 
What are we going to do about the natural cycle of earth? Are we going to try and fight nature? I think that may do more damage.

Also...what about volcanoes? Are we going to ask them nicely to stop filling out atmosphere with more green house gasses? They are a MAJOR problem when it comes to that.
 
Glirk Dient said:
What are we going to do about the natural cycle of earth? Are we going to try and fight nature? I think that may do more damage.

Also...what about volcanoes? Are we going to ask them nicely to stop filling out atmosphere with more green house gasses? They are a MAJOR problem when it comes to that.
Actually it has basically been proven that this is very far from a natural cycle of the earth.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/ancient-ice-core-tips-gases-galore/2005/11/25/1132703377074.html

As for volcanic activity:
The study appearing in the journal Science also suggests that in the world's pre-industrial times up until the mid 19th century, the CO2 concentrations had been at least a 100 parts per million lower than today. The study's lead author Thomas Stocker of the University of Bern in Switzerland said the results were “another piece” to show how man influenced atmospheric compositions in shorter time scales “compared to natural cycles of the climate system”. Events like volcanic eruptions are known to release into the atmosphere large volumes of methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide that contribute to Earth's rising surface temperature. But the new evidence clearly links the rising carbon dioxide concentrations to man's industrial and economic activity in the last two centuries.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/4530.html
 
It's a start anyway. Not bad. Maybe this will get the US to step in with it's own population wanting to do it so badly..but bush doesn't want to get involved...Lets just leave the US out of it until they decide to come along.
 
Well good. Hopefully something can be done...BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE! D:

Gh0st said:
man vs nature: the path to victory!

Isn't it man vs man? Global warming is self-harm!
 
As much as I respect The Independant, I fail to see the use in having two columns on a web page.
 
Glirk Dient said:
What are we going to do about the natural cycle of earth? Are we going to try and fight nature? I think that may do more damage.

Also...what about volcanoes? Are we going to ask them nicely to stop filling out atmosphere with more green house gasses? They are a MAJOR problem when it comes to that.

Natural cycle of the earth?! Yeah, our dumping of chloroflorocarbons have had nothing to do with the changes in the atmosphere! [/sarcasm] What does that stuff do, escape into space?! No, it is absorbed into the environment and contaminates the hydrologic cycle. It's the reason why we have acid rain.

In addition, we're destroying one of the only systems that is able to handle carbon dioxide intake. Plants. Humans are generating more CO2 than the earth's plants can handle.

There are alternate energy sources out there, it's just that the powers that be don't want to pursue it because they'd see a dip in their own profits.
 
Global Warming is a conspiracy to raise oil prices.
 
Solaris? Self-depreciating humour? Who'd have thunk it.
 
Damn, too much alex jones reading.

My uncles a phsyicist and doesnt belive in Global warming either, neither do pen and teller.
I'm not really sure.
 
How does one not believe in global warming? It's kind of factual isn't it?
 
Solaris said:
Damn, too much alex jones reading.

My uncles a phsyicist and doesnt belive in Global warming either, neither do pen and teller.
I'm not really sure.

Well, Pen and Teller aren't the people who I would go to for world-changing information. Unless they hold PhDs in Ecology/Biology etc., I wouldn't really take what they had to say to be fact. It's just their opinion.

While your uncle is a physicist, it doesn't make him right. I'd be interested to hear his views on the subject. Remember that brilliant minds can make mistakes. They're not infallible. That goes for both sides either opposing or accepting the concept of global warming.
 
He said it once during one of his drunken ramblings.
 
Solaris said:
Damn, too much alex jones reading.

My uncles a phsyicist and doesnt belive in Global warming either, neither do pen and teller.
I'm not really sure.

I'm a physicist and I do believe in Global Warming.
 
Ha ha, Bush got owned. Whether or not you buy global warming (I do), Bush got his d!ck knocked in the dirt.
 
How can you not believe in Global Warming lol, you and your uncle wouldnt be here if it didnt exist Solaris.
 
If anyone's read Michael Crichton's book 'State of Fear', that's basically a big piece of propaganda trying to dispel what the author sees as the 'myth' of global warming.

I don't know whether he's onto anything or not, but he certainly references a ton of obscure scientific sources and seems to know at least roughly what he's talking about. I think the general argument runs something to the effect that:
the means of measuring global temperature is dodgy, the records don't go back all that far, what increases there may have been in temperature are small and can be attributable to the growth of cities or something like that, etc etc. There are also some people of the mind that the biggest danger is not from global warming but from the next ice age.

I don't know one way or the other, I'm just your average clueless layman *shrug*
 
Ennui said:
How does one not believe in global warming? It's kind of factual isn't it?

Yeah it's a fact that the earth is heating up. However the debate is the cause of it. Is it us that is heating the earth up from vehicles, plants or is it volcanoes/natural causes that really add a ridiculous amount of gas into the atmosphere. Also it could be that the earth is just following its natural cycle of heating up and cooling down into an ice age as it has done before and it is continuing on that cycle.
 
Laivasse said:
If anyone's read Michael Crichton's book 'State of Fear', that's basically a big piece of propaganda trying to dispel what the author sees as the 'myth' of global warming.

I don't know whether he's onto anything or not, but he certainly references a ton of obscure scientific sources and seems to know at least roughly what he's talking about. I think the general argument runs something to the effect that:
the means of measuring global temperature is dodgy, the records don't go back all that far, what increases there may have been in temperature are small and can be attributable to the growth of cities or something like that, etc etc. There are also some people of the mind that the biggest danger is not from global warming but from the next ice age.

I don't know one way or the other, I'm just your average clueless layman *shrug*

When I read "The Lost World" by him, I noticed he had a bit of a rant about global warming. So I think I'd like to read State of Fear; he's a good writer anyway, I'll give him that.

Although the next ice age could be a consequence of global warming (which might seem counter-intuative), but there could be a negative feedback process that dominates in the whole system of this current global warming trend.

Damn Aztecs and their pollution! D:

*Kirovman shakes fist at Montezuma
 
Back
Top